any "bring your own bandwidth" IPv4 over IPv4 tunnel merchants?
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP addresses; dns issues; and limitations on the services that I can host at my residence. It just struck me that in the same way that IPv6 connectivity can be done via tunneling over IPv4 (Hurricane Electric, etc.), that static IPv4 addressability could be offered in a similar fashion. Some my question is: Does anyone offer (probably bandwidth restricted) IPv4 over IPv4 tunneling (with static IPs) commercially? I realize that making use of such a service MIGHT violate Terms of Service agreements, but that is going to vary from provider to provider and doesn't make offering such a service inherently wrong. Other possible reasons such services might be desired include wanting access to Internet services which are regionally restricted. (Again TOS violation possibilities MAY or MAY NOT apply.) In the (very?) long term, IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling could end up being one way that organizations can get IPv4 connectivity when the default changes from only-IPv4 to only-IPv6. (Yeah, I know that day may never come...) Thanks, Bill Bogstad
http://www.google.com/search?q=vpn+service Encryption would be a side benefit for your purpose. On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP addresses; dns issues; and limitations on the services that I can host at my residence. It just struck me that in the same way that IPv6 connectivity can be done via tunneling over IPv4 (Hurricane Electric, etc.), that static IPv4 addressability could be offered in a similar fashion.
Some my question is:
Does anyone offer (probably bandwidth restricted) IPv4 over IPv4 tunneling (with static IPs) commercially?
I realize that making use of such a service MIGHT violate Terms of Service agreements, but that is going to vary from provider to provider and doesn't make offering such a service inherently wrong. Other possible reasons such services might be desired include wanting access to Internet services which are regionally restricted. (Again TOS violation possibilities MAY or MAY NOT apply.)
In the (very?) long term, IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling could end up being one way that organizations can get IPv4 connectivity when the default changes from only-IPv4 to only-IPv6. (Yeah, I know that day may never come...)
Thanks, Bill Bogstad
-- Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.492.0464
On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:12:45 -0400 Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP addresses; dns issues; and limitations on the services that I can host at my residence. It just struck me that in the same way that IPv6 connectivity can be done via tunneling over IPv4 (Hurricane Electric, etc.), that static IPv4 addressability could be offered in a similar fashion.
Some my question is:
Does anyone offer (probably bandwidth restricted) IPv4 over IPv4 tunneling (with static IPs) commercially?
I realize that making use of such a service MIGHT violate Terms of Service agreements, but that is going to vary from provider to provider and doesn't make offering such a service inherently wrong. Other possible reasons such services might be desired include wanting access to Internet services which are regionally restricted. (Again TOS violation possibilities MAY or MAY NOT apply.)
In the (very?) long term, IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling could end up being one way that organizations can get IPv4 connectivity when the default changes from only-IPv4 to only-IPv6. (Yeah, I know that day may never come...)
Holly shit... Where do you live? In Ukraine we have almost no difference (well it is different from one company to another) between commercial and residental setups. At least it is so with smaller providers like one I have at home and one I work for (they are two different companies). So it seems very very strange to me you need to justify anything with your network operator. -- With best regards, Gregory Edigarov
On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:12:45 -0400 Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP ..
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Gregory Edigarov <greg@bestnet.kharkov.ua> wrote:
Holly shit... Where do you live? In Ukraine we have almost no difference (well it is different from one company to another) between commercial and residental setups. At least it is so with smaller providers like one I have at home and one I work for (they are two different companies). So it seems very very strange to me you need to justify anything with your network operator.
In most of the US, the standard residential ISP service gives you - some amount of bandwidth, usually asynchronous - dynamic IP address (with static available for a higher price) - some service quality and repair speed guarantees - many ISPs, especially cable modem, have annoying policies that say you can't run a server at home. But many don't. - some ISPs are starting to get the idea tha Most of the ISPs that provide that kind of service offer business service using the residential technology - higher price - better service quality and repair speed guarantees - static IP addresses, and you can run a server -- ---- Thanks; Bill Note that this isn't my regular email account - It's still experimental so far. And Google probably logs and indexes everything you send it.
- many ISPs, especially cable modem, have annoying policies that say you can't run a server at home. But many don't.
Right. Often, this is due to a combination of technology limitations -- with DSL, upstream and downstream bandwidths are tradeoffs; with cable modems, limited upstream bandwidth is inherent in the technology -- coupled with an obsolete model that assumes that consumers mostly download. Besides, if you can charge more for business service, why not...? --Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Gregory Edigarov <greg@bestnet.kharkov.ua> wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 14:12:45 -0400 Holly shit... Where do you live? In Ukraine we have almost no difference (well it is different from one company to another) between commercial and residental setups. At least it is so with smaller providers like one I have at home and one I work for (they are two different companies). So it seems very very strange to me you need to justify anything with your network operator.
North America. Specifically the Boston metro area of the USA. It's fairly common here to put all kinds of type of service restrictions on residential Internet connectivity. From what I've read on NANOG over the years, I thought this was common practice worldwide, but it sounds like that might not be the case in the Ukraine. Thanks, Bill Bogstad
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:12, Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP addresses; dns issues; and limitations on the services that I can host at my residence. <snip>
Not sure where you live / what service is available to you but many "business" DSL, cable and fixed-wireless offerings are quite reasonably priced these days. I pay about $100/mo for 16m x 2m and a /28 from my local cable operator - which is likely less than residential service plus a vpn/tunnel service. It sure isn't a fiber metro-E connection but it does let me run my various servers out of the house. Perhaps something to look into. $0.02 ~Chris
Thanks, Bill Bogstad
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
I'm using Comcast's business-class service. ~$110 per month for 22mbit down, 5mbit up and a /29. This would definitely be your best bet as opposed to trying to rig up a tunneled setup. You can also get their 12mbit down, 2mbit up service with a /29 for $79, iirc. ________________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [cgrundemann@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:01 PM To: Bill Bogstad Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: any "bring your own bandwidth" IPv4 over IPv4 tunnel merchants? On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:12, Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP addresses; dns issues; and limitations on the services that I can host at my residence. <snip>
Not sure where you live / what service is available to you but many "business" DSL, cable and fixed-wireless offerings are quite reasonably priced these days. I pay about $100/mo for 16m x 2m and a /28 from my local cable operator - which is likely less than residential service plus a vpn/tunnel service. It sure isn't a fiber metro-E connection but it does let me run my various servers out of the house. Perhaps something to look into. $0.02 ~Chris
Thanks, Bill Bogstad
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
LoL... I'm using that same service (without the /29 for $10/month) as transport for my tunneled setup. Owen On May 4, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Tim Burke wrote:
I'm using Comcast's business-class service. ~$110 per month for 22mbit down, 5mbit up and a /29.
This would definitely be your best bet as opposed to trying to rig up a tunneled setup. You can also get their 12mbit down, 2mbit up service with a /29 for $79, iirc.
________________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [cgrundemann@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:01 PM To: Bill Bogstad Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: any "bring your own bandwidth" IPv4 over IPv4 tunnel merchants?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:12, Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP addresses; dns issues; and limitations on the services that I can host at my residence. <snip>
Not sure where you live / what service is available to you but many "business" DSL, cable and fixed-wireless offerings are quite reasonably priced these days. I pay about $100/mo for 16m x 2m and a /28 from my local cable operator - which is likely less than residential service plus a vpn/tunnel service. It sure isn't a fiber metro-E connection but it does let me run my various servers out of the house. Perhaps something to look into.
$0.02 ~Chris
Thanks, Bill Bogstad
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
I've had no problems with it. Seems to be much better than the residential service. The /29 was only $10? I must be getting jipped, I'm paying $20. Tim Burke 630.617.1300 Cell tb@tburke.us Email Sent from my iPhone On May 4, 2010, at 12:52 PM, "Owen DeLong" <owen@delong.com> wrote:
LoL... I'm using that same service (without the /29 for $10/month) as transport for my tunneled setup.
Owen
On May 4, 2010, at 9:40 AM, Tim Burke wrote:
I'm using Comcast's business-class service. ~$110 per month for 22mbit down, 5mbit up and a /29.
This would definitely be your best bet as opposed to trying to rig up a tunneled setup. You can also get their 12mbit down, 2mbit up service with a /29 for $79, iirc.
________________________________________ From: Chris Grundemann [cgrundemann@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 2:01 PM To: Bill Bogstad Cc: NANOG list Subject: Re: any "bring your own bandwidth" IPv4 over IPv4 tunnel merchants?
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 12:12, Bill Bogstad <bogstad@pobox.com> wrote:
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP addresses; dns issues; and limitations on the services that I can host at my residence. <snip>
Not sure where you live / what service is available to you but many "business" DSL, cable and fixed-wireless offerings are quite reasonably priced these days. I pay about $100/mo for 16m x 2m and a /28 from my local cable operator - which is likely less than residential service plus a vpn/tunnel service. It sure isn't a fiber metro-E connection but it does let me run my various servers out of the house. Perhaps something to look into.
$0.02 ~Chris
Thanks, Bill Bogstad
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
On Mon, 2010-05-03 at 14:12 -0400, Bill Bogstad wrote:
Like many people, I can't justify the expense of "commercial" IP connectivity for my residence. As a result, I deal with dynamic IP addresses; dns issues; and limitations on the services that I can host at my residence. It just struck me that in the same way that IPv6 connectivity can be done via tunneling over IPv4 (Hurricane Electric, etc.), that static IPv4 addressability could be offered in a similar fashion.
Some my question is:
Does anyone offer (probably bandwidth restricted) IPv4 over IPv4 tunneling (with static IPs) commercially?
I realize that making use of such a service MIGHT violate Terms of Service agreements, but that is going to vary from provider to provider and doesn't make offering such a service inherently wrong. Other possible reasons such services might be desired include wanting access to Internet services which are regionally restricted. (Again TOS violation possibilities MAY or MAY NOT apply.)
In the (very?) long term, IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling could end up being one way that organizations can get IPv4 connectivity when the default changes from only-IPv4 to only-IPv6. (Yeah, I know that day may never come...)
Thanks, Bill Bogstad
You could do this with a VPS. Make sure they run Xen or KVM or VMware though, so you have control over the routing table. William
participants (9)
-
Bill Bogstad -
Bill Stewart -
Brandon Galbraith -
Chris Grundemann -
Gregory Edigarov -
Owen DeLong -
Steven Bellovin -
Tim Burke -
William Pitcock